Lew Rockwell Dunnit - in interviews with Reason, a half-dozen longtime libertarian activists—including some still close to Paul—all named the same man as responsible for writing Ron Paul's newsletters containing inflammatory rhetoric under his name: Llewellyn Rockwell, Jr.

Call me a control freak if you like, but if I had a newsletter published that had my name on the front of it I'd make damn well sure to at least have a cursory look at what's in it before it goes out.

I think we've all seen what it's like when there's a CEO President in the White House. It's not exactly brilliant.posted by clevershark at 7:23 AM on January 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

Oh, so it was only Paul's congressional chief of staff, then? Jeez, and to think I assumed Paul might have actually endorsed those writings! Clearly, though, Rockwell and Paul have little in common. DO YOUR RESEARCH. Oh, wait, you just did.posted by billysumday at 7:24 AM on January 16, 2008 [5 favorites]

Also, I've been intrigued by this quote from the newsletters: "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks." My question is, was this true? I mean, obviously the sentiment behind the statement is pure racist drivel, but I'm wondering where this idea came from. Were there libertarian scouts in the streets of Watts who noted that at midnight on the first of the month, a mass of rioters simultaneously put down their bats, cashed their checks, bought some groceries, then went home and fell asleep? It's like out of a Wayans brothers movie.posted by billysumday at 7:27 AM on January 16, 2008 [4 favorites]

I used to have a look at lewrockwell.com now and then and noticed the occasional palaeoconservative though not outright racist article. I thought they were being "inclusive" rather than endorsing such a stance. Live and learn.

I can't imagine what a libertarian convention must be like - how do you tell your friends from your enemies? Coded words? Different color hankies in different pockets? Does everyone know at a glance and it ends up with all the liberals on one side of the room and conservatives on the other?posted by fleetmouse at 7:30 AM on January 16, 2008 [2 favorites]

The libertarian brain is highly developed in the areas of visual recognition. I think it is something to do with paleoconservative body language - they shriek and gibber in a far more reactionary pattern, arms akimbo.posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 7:34 AM on January 16, 2008

I first became aware of Lew Rockwell and The Ludwig von Mises "Institute" (we use latin and photos of old men, we're smart!) from their relentless spamming of reddit. That's also where I learned to loathe them.posted by Pastabagel at 7:37 AM on January 16, 2008 [3 favorites]

I can't imagine what a libertarian convention must be like

There's a reason for that. All libertarians want freedom, so no two of them can agree about where and when to have those darn conventions.posted by clevershark at 7:39 AM on January 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

OK, smarty-pantses, who would you like to win the Republican primary? I think you'll find that they are all worse than Paul, even if he wrote those newsletters himself and meant every word of them.posted by king walnut at 7:43 AM on January 16, 2008

I want Fred thingy to win, because that would be of high comedic value.posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 7:45 AM on January 16, 2008

I don't care who wins the Republican primary as long as Paul runs as a third-party independent. America needs Ron Paul.posted by brownpau at 7:47 AM on January 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

Libertarians can't have conventions. Somebody inevitably suggests that they all chip in $10 for pizza and the rest of the time is spent on his trial and expulsion from the party.posted by ND¢ at 7:51 AM on January 16, 2008 [12 favorites]

billysumday: Be fair. They also have coolers with unfluoridated water.posted by Bromius at 8:00 AM on January 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

raw milk. Yanks actually call milk out of a cow 'raw milk'. If I didn't think you were fucked before, I do now. And I did.posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 8:00 AM on January 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

what's the difference between these 'paleo-libertarians' and regular conservatives? I thought one of the key differences between regular libertarians and conservatives were things such as stances on the drug war and civil rights which apparently the paleo type goes the opposite way on.

This is unfortunate to read about lewrockwell. I've read many an article linked from his site and the general tone was that of being against the media face of libertarianism (Kelsey Grammar, Dennis Miller types) and it's association with the right. Lew even wrote a quasi apology for having encouraged voting for Bush in 2000. Lew Rockwell seems to be filled with areligious, pro-abortion types which is highly uncharacteristic of the segregationist right and Ron Paul. But I've only been paying attention for about 8-9 years and the end of the article suggests this is where it might have changed. I wonder if it's a change of heart with these people, or a change of political strategy.posted by kigpig at 8:02 AM on January 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

who would you like to win the Republican primary?

Whoever the Republican base likes best. That way they'll be most demoralized (and chastened) when they lose horribly, plus that candidate will be taken out for 2012 and we'll have peace and happiness and also puppies and everyone would come to my birthday also I'd have healthcare and a unicorn.

how do you tell your friends from your enemies? Coded words? Different color hankies in different pockets?

Have you seen the polling on ponies? Not electable, especially once the right-wing noise machine starts up.posted by DU at 8:11 AM on January 16, 2008

(Also, I just realized I put "Republicans" and "chastened" in the same sentence. LOLNOSHAME)posted by DU at 8:12 AM on January 16, 2008

"Rockwell and the prominent libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with populist ''paleoconservatives..."

So, these 'paleoconservatives.' Where do they work now? At the Creation Museum in Kentucky?posted by ericb at 8:17 AM on January 16, 2008

No, no, no, the worst thing about libertarian conventions is the fact that all there is to drink is raw milk.
And here I assumed they'd have rainwater and pure grain alcohol.posted by Thorzdad at 8:21 AM on January 16, 2008

And here I assumed they'd have rainwater and pure grain alcohol.

Yeah, keep dreaming. The rainwater is acidic and the pure grain alcohol is made from what, corn? Just what the military-industrial-agri-business cabal needs, another fucking dollar in their pocket.posted by billysumday at 8:23 AM on January 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

You guys are pretty funny with the libertarian mocking. Fact is, the movement that has coalesced around Ron Paul's message has demonstrated itself to be the most organized political movement in decades. In true 21st century fashion, they are proceeding in a spontaneous, transparent, and decentralized manner. This is especially fascinating given the diversity of the individuals, who in most other contexts would probably end up in a shouting match over fundamental disagreements (abortion, immigration, lifestyle choices, religion, etc.)posted by stratospark at 8:32 AM on January 16, 2008

Clearly it would have to be grain alcohol distilled from patented, genetically-modified corn.posted by clevershark at 8:32 AM on January 16, 2008

Whoever the Republican base likes best. That way they'll be most demoralized (and chastened) when they lose horribly, plus that candidate will be taken out for 2012 and we'll have peace and happiness and also puppies and everyone would come to my birthday also I'd have healthcare and a unicorn.

What worries me is if that they nominate a lunatic like Huckabee, and lose to Obama in a close election that they can claim was 'stolen'. That will bring out the assassins.

Can someone articulate for me why Romney is not considered a threat to democrats? He doesn't appear to be a dummy, so I never understood this. Didn't he run Massachusettes somewhat progressively? It seems to me that the only reason democrats think he can't win is because he's Mormon, which doesn't strike me as even remotely logical thinking.posted by Pastabagel at 8:36 AM on January 16, 2008 [2 favorites]

"Fact is, the movement that has coalesced around Ron Paul's message has demonstrated itself to be the most organized political movement in decades."

Except for the Democratic and Republican parties, who are organized enough to get people elected. Or the Ross Perot campaign, which managed to get him into debates. Or the Ralph Nader campaign in 2000.

Ron Paul only looks organized if your next best models are the American Communist Party and the Constitution Party.posted by klangklangston at 8:36 AM on January 16, 2008 [8 favorites]

Call me a control freak if you like, but if I had a newsletter published that had my name on the front of it I'd make damn well sure to at least have a cursory look at what's in it before it goes out.

Exactly. And -- Ron Paul, his wife and daughter were all board members of the entity publishing the newsletters...

"The publishing operation was lucrative. A tax document from June 1993—wrapping up the year in which the Political Report had published the 'welfare checks' comment on the L.A. riots—reported an annual income of $940,000 for Ron Paul & Associates, listing four employees in Texas (Paul's family and Rockwell) and seven more employees around the country. If Paul didn't know who was writing his newsletters, he knew they were a crucial source of income and a successful tool for building his fundraising base for a political comeback."

This is especially fascinating given the diversity of the individuals, who in most other contexts would probably end up in a shouting match over fundamental disagreements (abortion, immigration, lifestyle choices, religion, etc.)

What brings them together is the sheer joy of heading down to the highway overpass with bedsheets with "Google Ron Paul" written on them in shoe polish. It's magic.posted by Divine_Wino at 8:38 AM on January 16, 2008 [4 favorites]

The libertarian brain is highly developed in the areas of visual recognition.

In true 21st century fashion, they are proceeding in a spontaneous, transparent, and decentralized manner.

Why does this sound like it should be the narration to some Maoist animatronic tableau in Beijing Disneyland?posted by fleetmouse at 8:41 AM on January 16, 2008

Fact is, the movement that has coalesced around Ron Paul's message has demonstrated itself to be the most organized political movement in decades. In true 21st century fashion, they are proceeding in a spontaneous, transparent, and decentralized manner.

Which is it? Organized movement or spontaneous and decentralized? From my vantage point, which is admittedly limited, a bunch of signs that say GOOGLE RON PAUL on highway overpasses does not a movement make. Libertarians want to be left alone. They don't want to join a group. This is what makes it difficult for them to amass a movement.

This is especially fascinating given the diversity of the individuals, who in most other contexts would probably end up in a shouting match over fundamental disagreements (abortion, immigration, lifestyle choices, religion, etc.)

See, they DO end up getting in a shouting match. You can't try to rally the troops by printing racist, paranoid pamphlets, because you tend to alienate minorities and homosexuals. And you can't claim to believe in creationism without angering some people who think that belief in evolution is important. You're not going to win the vote of many teachers when your position is to end the education system. Libertarianism is not a movement. It won't ever be. It's a name give to people that don't like the federal government. Ron Paul represented a hope similar to that which Ralph Nader embodied - the dismantling of the federal government as we know it and starting over. So, anyway, I'm sorry about your loss. Try again in 2012, and next time choose someone who doesn't have a litany of publications in their past that make them look like the crazy racist uncle who is no longer invited to family reunions.posted by billysumday at 8:47 AM on January 16, 2008 [2 favorites]

That's too bad. I'm willing to overlook some of the paleo tendencies of many libertarians, but if you're running a southern strategy-style campaign, that's not something I can support. I like Ron Paul, was never going to vote for him, but obviously he has too much baggage to be effective anymore.posted by krinklyfig at 8:48 AM on January 16, 2008

Call me a control freak if you like, but if I had a newsletter published that had my name on the front of it I'd make damn well sure to at least have a cursory look at what's in it before it goes out.

No, no, no, the worst thing about libertarian conventions is the fact that all there is to drink is raw milk.
posted by billysumday at 10:58 AM on January 16 [+] [!]

No no...the worst thing about a libertarian convention is that all the attendees insist on clearing their own paths to the convention center and it takes years before anyone even shows up.posted by Skygazer at 8:53 AM on January 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

stratospark: The 21st century is only 7% finished. Also: I'm not sure "organized" is what you are looking for. Perhaps "vocal" is a better choice of words.posted by absalom at 8:59 AM on January 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

I must admit that I am worried about what the paultards are going to do with all their fervor after the election is over. Join militias? Become tax protesters? Enter neckbeard grooming competitions? Compete in blimp races? Someone should find a healthy outlet for their poor misguided enthusiasm.posted by ND¢ at 8:59 AM on January 16, 2008 [4 favorites]

ooh, ooh, I want to try one:

A paleo-libertarian is someone how believes in neither public roads or antibiotics?

Obviously, but I suppose my "plausibility threshold" just isn't being met...posted by clevershark at 9:01 AM on January 16, 2008

In the best case scenario the Ron Paul political newsletters existed only to make money and therefore included the racist bits, which (let's assume) Paul himself didn't agree with (although he did agree to have them published in his name, let's assume by neglect) because his organization knew that the newsletters' subscribers consisted mostly of survivalist militia members.

Frankly it doesn't look very good. It paints a picture of Paul not as the "straight shooter" which his supporters assume him to be, but as an amoral businessman willing to pander to some pretty vile political leanings in order to make a buck, and one who's willing to throw a subordinate (even an unnamed one) under the bus when it comes to taking responsibility. In the end Ron Paul is just a politician like any other. Giving him an air of sainthood seems a little bit silly. This may be only one incident -- or it may merely be the one we know about so far.posted by clevershark at 9:11 AM on January 16, 2008 [2 favorites]

In true 21st century fashion, they are proceeding in a spontaneous, transparent, and decentralized manner.

billysumday: organized and spontaneous and decentralized. Just like the Internet. I suppose my techie background feeds my libertarianism and vice versa. Complex things can arise without top down management. I suppose that many people can't see how this can happen (similar to evolution, IMO). Regarding the Ron Paul "Revolution" in particular, check the tens of thousands of Meetup members, the various projects and fundraising efforts organized by individuals without orders from the official campaign, and, yes, the highway banners and signs put up all across the nation. Everyone wants to join a group, that's human nature. Libertarians are part of a wide-ranging group that is happy to include anyone who just wants to pursue their own peaceful interests (this is how you get pot smokers and Christian homeschoolers in the same room).

Sure, I disagree with Paul on some issues, big ones even. Immigration is the biggest. I believe in evolution, though I don't really care what Paul's personal views are, I'm a bit disappointed there. I don't like his alliances with the paleo strategy, but I don't think he's a racist himself. But even if he's going to lose, I'm still voting for him in the primaries, and I'll write him in for the general (if no other Libertarian comes along). We're cluster bombing the hell out of third world countries, we're looking cluster bomb some more, we're condemning the inner city and peaceful citizens with the War on Drugs, we're invading privacy and shredding the Constitution with the War on Civil Liberties, we're destroying our economy with senseless spending and inflationary actions, and no one else is saying anything about this. That's what I consider craziness. If we don't fix this now, I do hope someone comes along in 2012 (and our troops will still be in Iraq as per the Democrats own words, though I guess it's a bit better than McCain's glorious 100 year plan). Anyway, hope you see where I (and other libertarians/Paul supporters) are coming from.posted by stratospark at 9:25 AM on January 16, 2008 [3 favorites]

I'm still voting for him in the primaries, and I'll write him in for the general (if no other Libertarian comes along).

Fact is, the movement that has coalesced around Ron Paul's message has demonstrated itself to be the most organized political movement in decades.

So well-run, well-organized, and well-financed, that not only is an upstart like Paul pulled himself into a race he shouldn't be involved in, he's right in the thick of the race for the nomination! Just look at these current delegate counts!

But that's OK. Ron Paul is used to being SILENCED ALL HIS LIFE!posted by dw at 9:44 AM on January 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

After all those years being a racist, you'd think Ron Paul would be better at it by now. I mean, voting against the Drug War? Just plain nuts. Now how are we going to keep the black man in prison and under control? And what about all those brown-skinned towel heads? Ron Paul wants to let up on them. Lunacy. We need to keep bombing them and keep them in chaos, lest they come after us. I say leave the racism to the professionals. Vote Hillary.posted by king walnut at 9:45 AM on January 16, 2008 [5 favorites]

I must admit that I am worried about what the paultards are going to do with all their fervor after the election is over.

Probably take a mass vacation to Egypt to check out this "De Nile" thing that everyones been telling them about.posted by Artw at 9:53 AM on January 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

Pastabagel I can't speak for anyone else but re: Romney, I'm convinced he'd be a loser for the Republicans pretty much entirely because of the Mormon thing. A significant fraction of the Republican voters are fundies, and they're pretty much convinced that the LDS is a satanic cult, so I just plain don't see them voting for Romney.

Obviously the Republicans who aren't fundies would vote for Romney if he got their party's nomination, but without the fundie vote the Republicans simply can't get enough votes to win.

My *ideal* outcome would be a tight race between Huckabee and McCain, ultimately ending with McCain getting the nomination by a razor thin margin, and McCain takes the nomination from the rubble of a bitterly divided party beginning to fragment. Dunno what the odds of that happening are, but I like it.

stratospark I'm a techie myself, and I have many lower-case "L" libertarian principles. But until the Libertarian movement can admit that the government isn't the sole and only threat to my civil liberties, they're worthless, and worse seem to be the stooges, hacks, or thralls of America's corporate aristocracy.

Also the "taxation is theft" line of drivel really drives me up the wall, as does the insistence of many Libertarians that regressive taxation is the only proper way to run things.

As for Ron Paul personally, I only see one good thing about him, and that's his opposition to Iraq, and to American imperial ambitions in general. On every other issue he's not just wrong, he's crazy. He wants to help entrench the aristocrcy by abolishing the estate tax. He wants to "stop" illegal immegration by attacking welfare, wasting billions on fences, border patrolls and other worthless endevors; but the idea of, gasp, penalizing those who hire illegals and thus reducing the *demand* for illegal workers, well that wouldn't help the aristocracy, so he won't even mention it. He's supposedly an OBGYN, but he has apparently never heard of an ectopic pregnancy. And, for the icing on the cake, he's got some insane hair up his ass about abolishing the Federal Reserve and ruining our economy with a doomed attempt to switch to the gold standard.

I'd rather have another four years of Bush than let Paul into the Oval Office. Bush is evil, but he isn't crazy.posted by sotonohito at 9:57 AM on January 16, 2008 [4 favorites]

Libertarianism is not a movement. It won't ever be. It's a name give to people that don't like the federal government. Ron Paul represented a hope similar to that which Ralph Nader embodied - the dismantling of the federal government as we know it and starting over.

It is a movement. You fail to recognize it because apparently your presupposition is that a movement must be aimed at changing or upholding the policies of a centralized power. That we work for a goal which, if reached, would make it more difficult for other political movements to succeed does not mean there is no organization, plan or platform for libertarians. I agree that there is something fundamentally different. Instead of pulling the focus (money, power) towards the center and then engaging in an argument about where the center should be positioned, the libertarian idea is to let as much as possible disperse out towards the circumference. It's a big tent, many of us want to live in ways that others find disagreeable, and there's also more in common than hating the Feds. No one wants to 'start over'; I sure don't think there's any reason to expect better results from a second attempt to build up government.

Terrible shame about Ron Paul though. It looks like we'll keep burning money by the billion. I wonder how that will work out for us.

-----

stratospark,

Our troops will still be in Iraq in 2012. The troops will be in Germany for less time than those in Iraq. The real question will be the state of the economy and the deficit. It will be interesting to see whether Americans will be ready to face some hard economic truths at that time. My suspicion is that when times get tough, voters will start crying out for more social programs and we will further slow our own recovery. If it wasn't so sad (and, more importantly, if my fate wasn't in the balance as well) it would be hilarious that at the same time we have the U.S. Comptroller going out and making media appearances to warn citizens about the deficit, we also have the Democrats promising health care and the Republicans promising more war on terror.posted by BigSky at 9:58 AM on January 16, 2008

this is how you get pot smokers and Christian homeschoolers in the same room

There is not a word in the English language as accurately descriptive as "paultard".

walnut, opposition to big-government involvement to warmongering and drug prohibition is completely orthogonal to racism, prejudice, and cultural chauvinism.

what is not, however, orthogonal is opposition to big-government telling states the acceptable minimums that all US citizens enjoy. The libertopian position as argued by Ron Paul rolls back, on a state-by-state basis, the important freedoms that were won in the latter half of the 20th century: the freedom for colored people in Kansas to go to their neighborhood public school (1954), the right for a women in Connecticut to buy contraception (1965), the right to people in Virginia to marry regardless of skin color (1967), the abortion thing (1973), and the right in Texas for consenting adults to have a penis thrust up their ass (1994, woohoo!).

Ron Paul, as most libertards do, stand for "community standards". This sounds wonderful in theory -- and truth be told, living in the wealthiest, most productive, most intelligent, and sanest part of the world I would certainly enjoy such a regime -- but in practice would epic-fail given to the widespread distribution and communicability of "teh Stupid" -- racism, bigotry, chauvinism, intolerance, faith-based ignorance, in human societies, and most especially ours.posted by panamax at 10:09 AM on January 16, 2008 [7 favorites]

I'd posit that Jesus returning as a giant block of hashish in a room full of pot smokers and Christian homeschoolers probably wouldn't end well either.posted by Artw at 10:09 AM on January 16, 2008 [3 favorites]

king walnutwrites"After all those years being a racist, you'd think Ron Paul would be better at it by now. I mean, voting against the Drug War? Just plain nuts."

That's not really the point. I support Paul's stance against the Drug War, his anti-war stance, and some other positions, but he is going to damage his cause if he has this sort of baggage and doesn't do something more concrete to break with his past.posted by krinklyfig at 10:11 AM on January 16, 2008

There really is no need for that. It always looks to me like a child talking when I hear or read "Demoncrats," "Rethuglicans," "libtards," etc.posted by krinklyfig at 10:12 AM on January 16, 2008 [4 favorites]

Can you imagine the Giuliani talking point on this? "September the 11th brought home for me the importance of cities, writing and bronze."posted by fleetmouse at 10:14 AM on January 16, 2008 [4 favorites]

sotonohito: It seems to me that, more often than not, libertarians are the ones to speak out most vocally about corporate abuses. A few liberals like Kucinich do, but the Democrats as a whole are just as beholden to corporate interests as the Republicans. Ron Paul frequently speaks out against corporatism, where corporations and government work together against the best interests of the people... aka fascism.

Paul is only right about American foreign policy? What about the Drug War, the Patriot Act and other questions of civil liberties, torture, etc. Even if you disagree with him on everything else, these are huge issues that are not being addressed. If Paul is somehow elected, he'll most likely face Congressional opposition to most of his agenda. However, he would unilaterally be able to bring our troops back home and end the federal drug war by pardoning nonviolent offenders. Those two things alone would make him the best president in recent memory. But honestly, I'm just sick of this war. People say they are against it, but aren't willing to do what it takes to end it. Innocents die every day, victims are driven to become terrorists, and the cycle continues. When will we have the courage to say stop, even if we have to give up our pet government program.posted by stratospark at 10:15 AM on January 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

I'd posit that Jesus returning as a giant block of hashish in a room full of pot smokers and Christian homeschoolers probably wouldn't end well either.

"Those two things alone would make him the best president in recent memory. "

Also, the most imaginary and impeachable president in recent memory!

"People say they are against it, but aren't willing to do what it takes to end it."

Only a deranged person could make the leap from "We need to stop this war" to "Voting for Ron Paul is the best way to do so."posted by klangklangston at 10:41 AM on January 16, 2008

Yanks actually call milk out of a cow 'raw milk'. If I didn't think you were fucked before, I do now. And I did.

OK, I've heard of this phenomenon occasionally in these forums and I just want to say folks, there are perfectly good reasons that milk is pasteurized and homogenized. It's not some genetically modified hormone fed conspiracy people. People used to die before they started doing this. I know, the enlightedned Brits may not have to worry about things like snake weed poisoning or milk going bad in the transportation from pasture to home delivery, but the rest of the folks that don't live on a tiny, barren, fog enshrouded, boggy island do and we rely on ages old processes like pasteurization and homogenation to keep us from being sickened. Anyone who is not a Brit and is considering any of these "single cow" milks, don't. Milk from a single cow is not like single cask wiskey. If the cow eats chives, your milk is going to taste like chives. If the cow eats snake root, you are going to die.posted by Pollomacho at 10:41 AM on January 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

Gotta love the weekly LOLPAUL post at MetaFilter. The groupthink meter is off the charts.posted by knave at 10:45 AM on January 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

klangklangston: yes, crazy, deranged, keep using those words. In the mean time, another soldier is dead and another Iraqi child is made an orphan. I didn't suggest voting for Ron Paul was the best or only way to end the war. I'm just saying that people are putting other selfish interests ahead of ending the war. People who want universal healthcare will vote for someone who enthusiastically voted for the war. People who want "change" and "hope" will vote for someone who has continually funded the war and has threatened sovereign nations. People who want lower taxes will vote for warmongers. I wish I could stop caring, but I can't be content knowing that my money is going towards the war machine. I'd like to see Congress impeach a president that does what 70% of this country supposedly wants.posted by stratospark at 11:00 AM on January 16, 2008 [2 favorites]

"yes, crazy, deranged, keep using those words."

Sure, why not? They fit.

"In the mean time, another soldier is dead and another Iraqi child is made an orphan."

Fantastic emotional appeal! Also, another puppy has died and another child who dreams of being an astronaut ninja has learned that he'll have to repeat second grade.

"I didn't suggest voting for Ron Paul was the best or only way to end the war."

Then why bring up the war? If there are other, better ways of ending the war, maybe the war should be discussed in those contexts, if the goal is to end the war. If the goal is to get Ron Paul elected, well, get ready for me to make fun of you for suggesting that this will either happen or have anything to do with the war ending.

"I'm just saying that people are putting other selfish interests ahead of ending the war."

OH NOES SOME PEOPLE WANT TO NOT DIE HERE RATHER THAN SAVE AN IRAQI!

"People who want universal healthcare will vote for someone who enthusiastically voted for the war."

Yes, though those things aren't a causal relationship. People who want universal healthcare will also vote for someone who enthusiastically voted against the war, or who promises them an end to the estate tax.

"People who want "change" and "hope" will vote for someone who has continually funded the war and has threatened sovereign nations."

Yeah, and people who want to end the war will vote for someone who's published racist screeds for years. Are you thinking that you're somehow making a decent point here?

" People who want lower taxes will vote for warmongers."

Also, Ron Paul!

"I wish I could stop caring, but I can't be content knowing that my money is going towards the war machine."

You can always choose not to pay taxes, but I guess your personal concerns, like liberty, outweigh how much you care about those Iraqi orphans you were so sobbing over just a minute ago.

"I'd like to see Congress impeach a president that does what 70% of this country supposedly wants."

I'd also like to see Congress impeach Bush, but your logic in this last sentence is totally fucked—70% of the country is against the war, roughly. And that's got nothing to do with Ron Paul.

Basically, the problem is that you have a cartoon vision of politics, which is why you're supporting a cartoon candidate. I don't really have a problem with that—the idiot vote has a noble and hoary tradition in American politics—but whenever you're confronted with someone who actually has at least a tiny inkling of how American politics works, you should politely bow out and pledge your support for Mickey Mouse, so everyone can see that you don't have anything to add to a real conversation.posted by klangklangston at 11:13 AM on January 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

I don't understand how people who think Ron Paul should be president think policy is made. Like...do they think President Paul would rule by decree? If everyone slept in on election day and Ron Paul were president, Congress would block practically every policy he wanted to initiate.posted by dismas at 11:21 AM on January 16, 2008

klangklangston: I was talking about the 70% of the public that opposes the war. You say Paul would be impeached for unilaterally pulling the troops out. I say, I'd love to see Congress try that when the public overwhelming would back that decision.

But ok klangklangston, you seem to have a "tiny inkling" of how politics works, so I'll shut up and go back to my cartoons. Much better than having blood on my hands.posted by stratospark at 11:30 AM on January 16, 2008

dismas: I'm a Paul supporter and I agree. This is why we should focus on what he could actually accomplish through his powers as an executive. Namely, drastic changes in our foreign policy and reversing the destruction of our civil liberties (including the War on Drugs). The other "fringe" aspects of his platform that some people are concerned about aren't going to happen, so why worry about them. Realize what can actually happen, compare that with what would actually happen if other candidates win, and decide on that basis what would bring America closer to your vision.posted by stratospark at 11:37 AM on January 16, 2008

Every time you call Ron Paul crazy on the internet a kitten dies.

However every time you call Ron Paul crazy a Paulite wastes precious minutes of his time writing a 500 word rebuttal, so, you know, it's a balance.posted by Artw at 11:39 AM on January 16, 2008 [3 favorites]

Our troops will still be in Iraq in 2012. The troops will be in Germany for less time than those in Iraq.

Why do we have troops in Germany at all? The threat of a Soviet tank invasion seems a bit remote. And even if, wouldn't Poland, Lithuania, Romania and Bulgaria -- all NATO members -- make better bulwarks?posted by msalt at 11:48 AM on January 16, 2008

"there are perfectly good reasons that milk is pasteurized and homogenized. People used to die before they started doing this."

Yeah, that's why it was a dietary staple for human beings in the Old World for something like 10,000 years.

Over that time, people who herded milk producing animals learned how to stop the milk from tasting shitty, or from containing poison. It was called 'a fence'.

Now, don't get me wrongo, I drink pasteurised milk, and indeed the low fat type, which no doubt has been thru multiple weird filtration processes, and yes, obviously I agree that pasteurisation has saved countless lives and is a necessary process (when you have as many morons on the planet as we have right now). But I've also drunk fresh milk minutes after it squirted out of a cow, still warm from its body, from the fucking bucket, and I aint dead. And it was delicious.
What I'm saying is that milk out of a cow is just called 'milk', and when it is pasteurised, it's 'pasteurised milk' or 'homogenized milk' or whatever it happens to be. Unprocessed milk is simply milk. Calling it 'raw milk' is dumb.

My theory is that the Yanks are afraid of everything. They are amongst the most hysteric race on the planet, which is why they attack everyone at the drop of a hat and have incredible losses during war due to friendly fire. Now you're worried about the fucking milk. Boil it and get on with it.posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 11:48 AM on January 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

Because shaving cream seems so frothy and innocent, the glorious barrier that stands as a guard or shield between your skin and the sharp blade. The cream is our valiant protector, so surely that is not the source of the problem!

In fact, it is not our protector. Shaving cream is destroying your skin, turning it into a whining, pathetic, dependent, beaten, insipid layer of pasty pulp. Your skin has become the fatted calf that has been killed, the lamb slain on the altar, the virgin sacrificed in some ancient cannibalistic ritual of an uncivilized people. (...)

My freedom from shaving cream began twenty years ago after a friend uttered to me the great truth that shaving cream is a racket. Ever since I have exulted in my knowledge and felt deep pity on the rest of the world for languishing in unknowingness.

To my knowledge, this is the first and only time that this great truth has been revealed. May this short article serve as a hinge of history.posted by iviken at 11:52 AM on January 16, 2008 [2 favorites]

I'm holding out for a Ron Paul/RuPaul ticket.posted by kirkaracha at 12:11 PM on January 16, 2008

Henry C. Mabuse: Does that mean that the Brits are among the most hyperbolic race on the planet, painting entire cultures in cartoony stereotypes?

Well, they did bring us White Man's Burden.

PS: See how I used "culture" and not "race"? Big difference.posted by absalom at 12:12 PM on January 16, 2008

Bah! Post edit: I meant to use "culture" and not "race." I may not be a warmongering american, but I suppose I wear the ignorant label with pride. Ha!posted by absalom at 12:13 PM on January 16, 2008

Only a deranged person could make the leap from "We need to stop this war" to "Voting for Ron Paul is the best way to do so."

The sad thing about America: Is there a better way? Kucinich or Gravel would be better, not that Kucinich isn't a nut, even if a harmless New-Agey one, and I don't even know what to think about Mike Gravel. But those have and had even less of a chance than Ron Paul.posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 12:21 PM on January 16, 2008

"klang, are you trying to say that Mickey Mouse wouldn't make a better president than any of the mainstream candidates?"

I only really know his position on copyright.

"I was talking about the 70% of the public that opposes the war. You say Paul would be impeached for unilaterally pulling the troops out. I say, I'd love to see Congress try that when the public overwhelming would back that decision."

Uh, and pardoning all the drug offenders, highon. And while about 70% of the American populace opposes the war, that doesn't mean that 70% favor an immediate pull-out.

"But ok klangklangston, you seem to have a "tiny inkling" of how politics works, so I'll shut up and go back to my cartoons. Much better than having blood on my hands."

Right, so you aren't paying taxes? Because your absolutist bullshit IS cartoony, and you're not even consistent enough to live your cartoony bullshit. So why should I vote for your cartoony candidate again?

"Namely, drastic changes in our foreign policy and reversing the destruction of our civil liberties (including the War on Drugs)."

Except that while you'd totally be able to score some dank, duder, women wouldn't be able to get abortions, gays wouldn't be able to have sex, and labor and discrimination cases wouldn't be pursued by the Feds. That's what I mean by a cartoon candidate—he's one dimensional and his support of ending the war on drugs (which I agree with) does not mean that he's a good candidate when that goes along with opening the country up for more bullshit from every local government.

"The other "fringe" aspects of his platform that some people are concerned about aren't going to happen, so why worry about them."

None of his platform is going to happen, so why worry about it at all?

"Realize what can actually happen, compare that with what would actually happen if other candidates win, and decide on that basis what would bring America closer to your vision."

I think you're still missing the "Realize what can actually happen" phase.

"But I've also drunk fresh milk minutes after it squirted out of a cow, still warm from its body, from the fucking bucket, and I aint dead."

I'm sure there are people on earth that have played Russian Roulette and lived. Therefore, Russian Roulette is safe.

It seems to me that, more often than not, libertarians are the ones to speak out most vocally about corporate abuses.

Given that the libertarian platform entails eliminating every mechanism by which the government can prevent, penalise, or otherwise lessen the impact of corporate abuses, I'd say you're so full of shit your corneas are turning brown.

I mean, seriously, do libertarians really believe that, without laws penalising corporations for doing evil, corporations won't do evil? Have you never read the works of Dickens, or hell, even The Jungle? Or looked around the world- the Bhopal disaster is a prime example of what happens when nobody holds corporations responsible.posted by Pope Guilty at 12:45 PM on January 16, 2008 [2 favorites]

This would appear to be a strawman argument or plain non sequitur. Why are we talking about pork and chicken when my argument was that calling milk 'raw milk' sounds fucking dumb? Are you trying to say that drinking unprocessed milk from a cow is as dangerous as eating spoiled meat?

"I was pointing out that your "I did it, and it didn't kill me!" was retarded."

I thought you were just trying to play oneupmanship with me on the internet, and cocking it up. You're still drawing analogies between the poor old moo-cow's udder juice and ridiculously dangerous things, which continues to bolster my argument that Americans tend to hyperbole and overreaction to mild threats.posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 12:57 PM on January 16, 2008

"This would appear to be a strawman argument or plain non sequitur. Why are we talking about pork and chicken when my argument was that calling milk 'raw milk' sounds fucking dumb? Are you trying to say that drinking unprocessed milk from a cow is as dangerous as eating spoiled meat?"

We call it raw pork, or raw chicken, despite the fact that sometimes eating it as such won't kill you. Raw isn't spoiled.

"I thought you were just trying to play oneupmanship with me on the internet, and cocking it up. You're still drawing analogies between the poor old moo-cow's udder juice and ridiculously dangerous things, which continues to bolster my argument that Americans tend to hyperbole and overreaction to mild threats."

And you're still putting forth a bullshit argument based on anecdote, and bolstering my case that Israelis tend to bigotry.posted by klangklangston at 1:02 PM on January 16, 2008

My theory is that the Yanks are afraid of everything. They are amongst the most hysteric race on the planet

One need look no further than Public Service adverts to find (amusing) evidence of hysteria in the UK:

Raw milk is called such in America primarily because of raw milk cheese. Pasteurization is the norm, because unpasteurized milk can kill people. Neither reflects much of a cultural attitude inherent to Americans.

Instead of realizing that, you, like many foreigners, try to come up with some broad thesis about why Americans suck. I realize that's not specifically because you're Israeli, but rather because you're kind of an idiot.posted by klangklangston at 1:07 PM on January 16, 2008

Of course, my above post loses any value in a debate, being that Mr. Mabuse isn't British...but it's still hilarious.posted by retronic at 1:08 PM on January 16, 2008

This is a totally worthwhile thread devoted to the topic at hand.posted by oncogenesis at 1:15 PM on January 16, 2008

"Raw isn't spoiled."

Then it won't kill you, although your digestive system might complain a bit until you get used to it, but the worst of it is the taste. Still, we have a couple of million years more evolutionary adaption to eating raw meat than we actually do to drinking cow milk, so in fact theoretically, eating raw unspoiled uncooked meat straight out of the animal is safer than drinking milk. So your argument is still fucked.

"And you're still putting forth a bullshit argument based on anecdote, and bolstering my case that Israelis tend to bigotry."

Oh, you Anti-Semite! I knew you were a racist! I'm calling the ADL! That's why you suggested pork, wasn't it, you were just expressing your hatred against the Jew! Seriously, though, I'm not Israeli, I just said that to wind you up.

No, not anecdote. People have been drinking "raw milk" for approximately 10,000 years, and although it has made a small percentage sick and killed a few, by and large it hasn't been a problem. Pasteurisation is a relatively new process in the annals of milk drinking, and really only comes into necessity with a vast, mass production cattle industry and the long term storage of milk for weeks etc. Drinking the moo juice from Betsy out on the farm the day it's produced shouldn't be a bother for most people, just scrape the crap off the top.

Add to that, Pasteurisation doesn't actually kill off all the organisms in the milk, just most of 'em. So, again, you're pissing up a rope, rhetorically speaking.

"you, like many foreigners, try to come up with some broad thesis about why Americans suck. I realize that's not specifically because you're Israeli, but rather because you're kind of an idiot."

Yeah, us damn furriners!! Why can't we realize that Amuricuh is the greatest!! Well, the thing is, people don't have to make up reasons why Americans suck, because Yanks keep providing us with 'em. That's the real sadness.

Anyway, I win. Like mr_roboto says, let's go back to making fun of that old coot.posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 1:21 PM on January 16, 2008

is a prime example of what happens when nobody holds corporations responsible.

no no no, in Libertopia, corporations hold corporations responsible. This is so eminently workable I really fail to understand why people have problems with it.posted by panamax at 1:24 PM on January 16, 2008 [2 favorites]

Say you have a French expectant mother and an American expectant mother and you sit them down together for a meal.

You serve them both a fresh green salad and a class of merlot.

The American will eat the salad but not touch the wine. The French woman will drink the wine but not touch the salad.

In America pregnant women aren't supposed to drink, look at, or even think about alcohol lest their child come down with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. In France, there is no push to keep women away from alcohol, but they definitely recommend avoiding fresh greens because of toxicoplasmosis.

In both cases, though, the risks are very minor. One glass of red wine over the course of a pregnancy is no greater a risk for a mother and child than one green salad.

All this to say this discussion about how Americans more than any other group overblow risks is silly. Risk is in the eye of the beholder.

The big reason we require pasteurization of milk, BTW, has to do with transport. Milk spoils fast when not refrigerated, and it's a wonderful growth medium. Before the Food Purity laws, milk was often transported from farm to city in open vats.

Drinking cow's milk straight from the teat isn't that much of a risk (though it's still a risk, especially with the growing prevalence of O157:H7 in the American food chain). The further you get from that cow, though, the more risk you incur in drinking it.posted by dw at 1:26 PM on January 16, 2008 [3 favorites]

Personally, my little dream for the Republican primary is that, now that Huckabee, McCain, and Romney have each won a state or two, Thompson takes Carolina and Giuliani takes Florida. Heck, I can be generous, maybe Paul can have Nevada in a stunning surprise victory. With no clear frontrunner, and a campaign that has completely turned into a circular firing squad as everyone scrapes frantically for some kind of advantage, Super Tuesday and the primaries that follow are similarly split, and everyone ends up with a roughly equal number of delegates. This leads to a brokered convention, and ballot after ballot after ballot is cast, for days, with no clear winner emerging. Eventually, they have to lock all the delegates and candidates in there without food in a desperate effort to force them to a decision, like that papal election that happened that one time.

It works out so well when police investigators look into accusations of crimes leveled against officers police officers! Nothing whatsoever could go wrong with that approach.posted by clevershark at 1:30 PM on January 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

Anyone who is not a Brit and is considering any of these "single cow" milks, don't.

Where can I buy these unpasteurized, 'single cow' milks? The best they sell in Sainsburys is 'the champaign of milks', Jersey Gold Top

Milk without modifiers is just whatever is the most common thing you buy in the store -- in the US, that's pasteurized cow's milk. But almost all milk is pasteurized. And almost all milk is cow's milk. So we just call that "milk," because calling it "pasteurized milk" when the unpasteurized stuff is vanishingly rare is almost as stupid as it would be to call it "cow milk" to distinguish it from sheep milk or human milk.posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:33 PM on January 16, 2008

I, on the other hand, am the 'champagne' of morons.posted by PeterMcDermott at 1:35 PM on January 16, 2008

"Then it won't kill you, although your digestive system might complain a bit until you get used to it, but the worst of it is the taste. Still, we have a couple of million years more evolutionary adaption to eating raw meat than we actually do to drinking cow milk, so in fact theoretically, eating raw unspoiled uncooked meat straight out of the animal is safer than drinking milk."

God, that's so stupid I don't even know where to start. First off, the proper way of assessing risk isn't whether you've got a longer evolutionary history of one thing or another. Second off, given equal populations drinking raw milk or eating raw meat, more will die from raw meat because the pathogens are more dangerous. Third, the point is that neither is a good risk because we have ways to mitigate them.

"People have been drinking "raw milk" for approximately 10,000 years, and although it has made a small percentage sick and killed a few, by and large it hasn't been a problem."

Except for the ones who got sick and died. And your "I did it once and didn't die" is, again, fucking retarded.

"Drinking the moo juice from Betsy out on the farm the day it's produced shouldn't be a bother for most people, just scrape the crap off the top."

And rolling around the driveway doesn't require a seatbelt, but that's not proof that Americans are wimps for requiring cars to have seatbelts.

"Add to that, Pasteurisation doesn't actually kill off all the organisms in the milk, just most of 'em. So, again, you're pissing up a rope, rhetorically speaking."

Now toddle off and oppress some Palestinians or something—as an Israeli in England, you're doubly qualified.posted by klangklangston at 1:41 PM on January 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

clevershark: "I have to say, it's fun to see a post ABOUT Ron Paul get derailed into a completely different subject, for once."

I think that all political threads should be derailed into angry debates over the nomenclature of dairy products. The fact that this one was derailed by the thread's poster himself makes it extra-special.posted by octothorpe at 1:43 PM on January 16, 2008 [5 favorites]

Um, it's generally Americans who are mad keen on the oppression of Palestinians.posted by Artw at 1:43 PM on January 16, 2008

My video store doesn't carry DVDs titled "Raw Milk" anymore. Can you send me some links to a torrent or something?posted by XQUZYPHYR at 1:48 PM on January 16, 2008

"Um, it's generally Americans who are mad keen on the oppression of Palestinians."

More so than the Israelis? That's so bizarre an assertion I don't know what to do with it.posted by klangklangston at 1:51 PM on January 16, 2008

I'm going entirely by der internets here, but yes, it's generally Americans who have the most extreme and black and white view of the Israeli/Palestine situation, and who are most likely to say something hatefully stupid.posted by Artw at 1:58 PM on January 16, 2008

"Commercial distribution of packaged raw milk is prohibited in most countries. However, 28 US states allow sales of raw milk, and in other parts of the world, raw milk can often be bought direct from the farmer. In England, about 200 producers sell raw, or 'green top' milk direct to consumers, either at the farm or through a delivery service. Raw milk is sometimes distributed through a share program, wherein the consumer owns a share in the dairy animal or the herd, and can be considered to be consuming milk from their own animal. In the United States, Arizona, California, and Washington allow raw milk sales in retail stores with appropriate warning labelling."*posted by ericb at 2:06 PM on January 16, 2008

The Udder Truth -- "Raw milk really is a wonder tonic, say devotees, who meet secretly to buy it and swear it reverses chronic diseases. But is it safe to drink? The official word: No."posted by ericb at 2:09 PM on January 16, 2008

Um, I believe the Barack Obama campaign is the largest organzied political movement in the country right now. It dwarfs Ron Paul's in both fundraising and actually getting people out to vote.posted by empath at 5:29 PM on January 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

the worst thing about libertarian conventions is the fact that all there is to drink is raw milk.

No, the worst thing is all the home-made colloidal silver that gets passed around.posted by octobersurprise at 6:00 PM on January 16, 2008

"Um, I believe the Barack Obama campaign is the largest organzied political movement in the country right now. It dwarfs Ron Paul's in both fundraising and actually getting people out to vote."

Yes, but the Ron Paul campaign is the largest organized political movement in the country right now of people who believe Ron Paul has a chance of winning if only they spam a few more forums.posted by klangklangston at 8:55 PM on January 16, 2008

"More so than the Israelis? That's so bizarre an assertion I don't know what to do with it."

I suspect it was more a comment on the "doubly qualified" part which suggested that we Brits were big bad oppressors of Palestinians. Quite frankly that is so catastrophically false that its unfunny.

We don't oppress anyone anymore, and even when we did we tried to be even handed about it - we just oppressed everyone (well, everyone except our good friends the portuguese). It's all about the fairness you see - its perfectly acceptable to machine-gun the natives as long as you machine gun all of them.

Arch-indifference is more our speciality these days. Ask John Bull on the street what he feels about the Palestinians and Israels and he'll most likely just reply:

"What's that got to do with the price of raw milk?"posted by garius at 6:25 AM on January 17, 2008

"I suspect it was more a comment on the "doubly qualified" part which suggested that we Brits were big bad oppressors of Palestinians. Quite frankly that is so catastrophically false that its unfunny."

Well, the Brits did kind of steal Palestine then sell it to the Israelis. It's kind of hard to pretend that their hands are clean when it comes to the Middle East.posted by klangklangston at 8:23 AM on January 17, 2008

It's kind of hard to pretend that their hands are clean when it comes to the Middle East.

Unless, of course, you mean that Lew's flock are egging-on women to have abortions, rather than merely arguing for their right to choose. The latter sort, they're mostly folk who'd prefer abortion rates drop while still allowing women to choose freely for themselves. Which appears to have turned out for the best, as abortion rates are down to the lowest levels in eons. Greater freedom of choice turns out to actually be a good thing, even in the case of abortion!

That having "areligious types" associated with oneself is a thing of degradation is very amusing. I can certainly see how a true pro-abortionist would be a deficit, but the areligiousity? Jesus people, it's time to grow up!posted by five fresh fish at 1:54 AM on January 19, 2008

Tags

Share

About MetaFilter

MetaFilter is a weblog that anyone can contribute a link or a comment to. A typical weblog is one person posting their thoughts on the unique things they find on the web. This website exists to break down the barriers between people, to extend a weblog beyond just one person, and to foster discussion among its members.